Here is another system I found here:
http://batintheattic.blogspot....s-ac-for-swords.html
Quilt +1 AC, -2 blunt

Soft Leather +1 AC

Hard Leather +2 AC, -1 Blunt, -1 Edge
The rigidity of boiled leather offer good protection against blunt weapons.

Ring +3 AC, +1 Blunt, -1 Edge, -2 Point
The metal rings on leather greatly improved protection against edged weapon. But it's flexibility makes it little better than soft leather, and no different for piercing weapons.

Scale +4 AC, +1 Blunt, -1 Edge, +1 Point
The scales increase armor protection overall especially against edged weapons, but it is flexible so while better than ring doesn't get the full benefit, and piercing weapons can slip in between scales with only the leather to stop it.

Mail +5 AC, +1 Blunt, -2 Edge, +2 Point
see above for comments

Banded +5 AC, +1 Blunt, -2 Edge
This represents various coats of plate, roman Lorica Segmentata, etc. Better than chain versus piercing weapons but more expensive.

Plate +6 AC, +1 Blunt, -3 Edge
Plate is the king of armor with superior protection to just about anything. Blunt weapons do the best as the broad impact allow the rigid metal to be bent more easily degrading the armor's ability to protect the wearer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course we have no plate in this game but it is a different take that has more to do with the armor itself than the weapon against a number.

Possibly something needs done with the idea of two handed weapons as well. I think there should be less of a penalty for these...not used that much in this game but they are there.

Just noodling for now and getting the ideas out there...we may just not use it at all. If something is workable I am all for it but I don't want to make it too complex.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:52, Thu 11 Feb 2010.

The more I research the more i want to kick this to the curb before we even start it. There is no way a flail works better on an armored opponent than an unarmored. The charts I am seeing in the books and online are all pretty whacked out. If someone has a good suggestion then we might consider it but for now...back burner.

Egads!!

      Have you checked out the system used by Arms Law/ICE?  They have weapon
charts that us weapon vs type of armor.

Good, bad ugly?

I love the ICE combat charts. A separate chart for each weapon, with specific critical types based on the nature of the weapon. Some people thought they were too complicated, but I never thought so...

Hate these rules.  Never used 'em in any game I played in, and didn't suffer much for the lack...ditch them, please.

You missed the point.  If a flail gives a +2 to hit against armor that gives ac 2, then the armor is really like ac 4 to it.  But ac4 is still better than ac10.

I think he was saying the defensive adjustment for an unarmed person is better then the bonus for an armored person, and with a flail, I would have to agree, as the flails attack allows an agile person more time to avoid the blow then an armored and encumbered one.

ICE's system has the same sort of problem only it's worse in some cases.

For example compare the damage/crit results for no armor to those for boiled leather. You come out better very often for wearing no armor which is just silly.

I disagree, I don't think that is silly. There are instances where no armor will make it easier to avoid damage then wearing boiled leather. I looked them over quite a bit when I was using that system, and didn't see anything I found indefensible in the numbers. Notice that the to-hit charts also generated damage, and it wasn't uncommon for you to be harder to hit, but more greatly damaged if they connected.

Still possible but I have two pretty strong votes against using this type of system. Right now things are not broke so I am not inclined to fix them. I am glad to get some good feedback about the combat stances though.

I like the stances. Not much to add other than that.

I like the stances too although they haven't really affected me yet.

I'm not too crazy about the ICE stuff, although it certainly is descriptive.

For my own tastes, I think that having to calculate a specific weapons vs armor type bonus before attacks is getting a little nit-picky on details.

Personally I'm a very rules-crunchy player and I use weapon vs armor class in my own play-by-post forum with glee, but I don't think it fits the vibe of this game.  This game to me is more like the classic Basic-as-a-base with the additional AD&D races, classes, and spells bolted on that we all grew up playing.  For example, you didn't make me go through intelligence checks to see what spells Balthazar could learn.

Now onto combat stances.  My experience is that the DM yanks it away after the first battle against one big foe goes way too easily.  The problem is that if the party is up against a big baddie like a giant who has one deadly attack, the 6 party members all go full offense knowing that the chances of being the one attacked by the giant is 1 in 6.  What I'm trying to say is that the net bonus for the party is +10 if they have 6 attacks to the foe's one.

In defense of ICE, no calculations are required, all the work was dine before they were printed.

That said, it doesn't matter to me, I've played both ends of the spectrum, and it has seldom, if ever, had any impact on how much I liked or disliked a game.

It's more about the fellow players, and the frequency of posting to me, on line, but even table top it was pretty much of a non-issue.

I like the idea of stances though. Perhaps, with thought, it could even be tweaked a bit more, allowing for players to specialize in a stance, or improve in the use of one stance or another. To really flesh it out, you could even generate a gaming version of the story convention of 'styles', where some have advantages over another, and players could learn to disguise their style, or change from one to another.

Actually, that sounds like a fun set of rules to make up, but for the present, as is, the stances add a nice strategic element to the game.